President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
June 18, 2009 09:31 PM UTC

Polis Will Attend DNC Fundraiser Despite Calls To Cancel

  • 40 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

From the Colorado Independent:

As prominent gay activists pull their support and calls for a boycott grow louder, a spokeswoman for U.S. Rep. Jared Polis tells The Colorado Independent the Boulder Democrat still plans to attend the controversial $1,000-a-plate LGBT fundraising dinner for the Democratic National Committee in Washington, D.C., next Thursday.

“He is a proud Democrat,” Polis communications director Lara Cottingham said Wednesday evening.

“While he’s disappointed in the lack of movement from the administration, what the gay community needs now more than ever is a strong voice fighting for them in Washington,” Cottingham continued, “and the best way to do that is to stay active in the debate and not give up his seat at the table.”

…On Tuesday, blogger John Aravosis declared the fundraiser “effectively dead” when Marty Rouse, the national field director of the gay-rights advocacy group Human Rights Campaign, pulled his support.

…The same day, Pam’s House Blend proprietor Pam Spaulding raised the pressure on [event hosts] Polis, Frank and Baldwin, urging readers to: “Please politely contact our out LGBT representatives on the Hill to ask them why they still plan to hold the event in the wake of lack of leadership re: DADT repeal and the horrible DOMA brief and 2) do they see anything problematic about financially supporting a party that runs for cover when our issues come up on the Hill.”

Our view: Jared Polis is making the right decision, and calls for these Representatives to ‘boycott’ a Democratic National Committee fundraiser because of something the Obama administration did are counterproductive. For one thing, a DNC fundraiser will primarily benefit state parties and congressional campaigns, which is what the DNC will be concerned with in 2010. A disruption of DNC fundraising would hurt people who had nothing to do with the Obama administration’s choice to argue in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act in court–and are in many cases as upset as GLBT activists are, with what can reasonably be considered an abrogation of a campaign pledge.

Bottom line? There’s nothing wrong with being angry, but you need to hold the right people accountable–this is what Polis is saying. You don’t effect change by removing yourself from the game in a misdirected huff, or alienating people who might otherwise be willing to help you.

Tweet
Share

Comments

40 thoughts on “Polis Will Attend DNC Fundraiser Despite Calls To Cancel”

  1. This isn’t just any DNC fundraiser. This is a LGBT fundraiser.  This fundraiser has targeted the LGTB community and is sponsored by Barney Frank, Tammy Baldwin and Jared Polis, all openly gay members of Congress. This isn’t just about Obama. This is about a Congress that has been in Dem hands since 2006 and they have done absolutely nothing to move forward the LGBT agenda. Individual states and governors such as ours have done far more than this Congress can ever claim.

    Sometimes, actions speak louder than words and by attending this fundraiser, I think the action sends the wrong message to the LGBT community and to activists. The outrage stems from more than just the DOMA controversy. There has been an ongoing pattern within the Obama administration and within the Democratically controlled Congress–and the pattern is basically “do nothing…we’ll get around to it later.”

    We’ve lost thousands of fighting men and women due to Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell and the military has lowered it standards to the point of admitting several thousand felons to make up for the loss of new recruits and those that have been forced out of the military for being gay.

    We are losing Arabic interpreters, which we desperately need, simply because of being gay. How does that make us safer? How is that making our country more secure?

    Six out of fifty states in the union have given thumbs up to civil unions. That’s 44 states that currently do not offer that basic right to its gay citizens.

    The DoJ’s defense of the Defense of Marriage Act was just the final straw for a lot of folks that had assumed Obama would keep his word on this issue. And we all know that there is no better way to get politicians’ attention than to withhold funds. Money is about the only thing that gets these folks attention. What better way for Polis to really make a statement than to boycott this fundraiser?

    1. Let us keep in mind that Obama went out of his way to court the LGBT vote, calling himself a “fierce advocate” for gay equality and specifically pledging to end DODT, something that requires only his order to achieve.

      Like it or not, Obama has fumbled badly on the issue of gay rights, and a walkout by the openly gay members of Congress from this particular event will carry a lot more weight, and remind the President that reneging on pledges has consequences.

      1. Let’s be real.  In the age of Twitter, Tweeter (is that the same?), Facebook, CrackBerry, etc, if there isn’t progress in 1.5 milliseconds people feel betrayed.  GLBT people need to chill, big time.  Obama is tryin to juggle making sure this planet doesn’t go to hell economically and nuclearly (is that a word?) and all they can think of is when am I gonna get mine?  It will come.  He’s already given federal benefits to federal workers, which in any other administration would be on the front page of the NY Times for 2 weeks and the GOP would want to impeach over it.

        1. to tell gays to “chill” when this administration is actively breaking promises made on the campaign trail.

          If you’ve been following the gay rights issue since Inauguration Day, you’d know that GLBT’s were hardly “feeling betrayed” because progress wasn’t instantaneous. This is blowing up now because of an administration-filed brief that uses the most callous terms to describe gay relationships when the leader of said administration has pledged to repeal DOMA. And it was filed during June, which really illustrates how insensitive they are on the issue.

          It’s one thing to believe that the president has higher priorities. It’s another to give GLBT a big fat middle finger, then ask for their money because, hey, what are you going to do gays, vote Republican?

          Obama is solely to blame for this mess. He could have done a lot more to mollify the GLBT community and they would have found a way to be patient. He could have started by weeding out Bush admin holdovers or making sure they weren’t anywhere near such a high profile brief.

          1. The president has made it very clear he intends to push for repeal of don’t-ask-don’t-tell and equal rights for GLBT Americans.  His statement yesterday when he signed the granting of benefits to domestic partners made it clear that his team is working on this.  Look at the civil rights movement and how long it took for African-Americans to get the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, and just today they get a formal apology.  The GLBT community is getting the rights it deserves far faster, comparatively.

            Go ahead and join Cheney, Limbaugh and others in opposing the president in hopes he is defeated so that we get a GOP president in 2012 and then you’ll see how many rights you’ll get.

            1. I’m straight and married. I can’t be kicked out of the military for my orientation (which continues to happen to this day) – not that they would have my almost-39 year old ass at this point.

              Go ahead and keep bleating “patience, patience” to those you’re slapping in the face. At least a ‘pub administration won’t make any bones about being an adversary.

            2. you’re aware that Obama’s generous granting of benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees a) doesn’t include health insurance – you know, the single most important work benefit there is – and b) expires when Obama’s term does?

              Way to go, team. You’re really coming through.

              http://slog.thestranger.com/sl…

              2. From my understanding, that’s as far as he could go under DOMA.  This is really Congress’s job, and Congress’s problem.  We just got rid of a President who thought he could make up his own laws, ignore the laws on the books, and decline to enforce the laws before the public and courts.  While I hate the presentation, I understand the legalities.

                  2. … is that the DOJ must defend DOMA, just as Colorado had to defend Amendment 2, which is why the case was known as “Evans v. Romer.”

                    So, PR, you’re saying that DOMA has clauses that define whether or not the federal government can extend benefits to same sex partners of its employees? That’s fucked up, since that has nothing to do with marriage.  

  2. The DNC is, at least, partially responsible.  DNC leader Tim Kaine is positively horrible on gay rights–he supported a gay marriage ban in Virginia.  

    Not attending the fundraiser would not be giving up a seat at the table, as a co-host, it would be taking the table away so no one else can sit down.  

    If these three want to co-host a fundraiser for a group that advocates for gay rights, then raise funds for the Gay and Lesbian Congressional Caucus of which they are all members (actually, updating the website would be a good first step).

    I’m a big fan of Jared’s, but he’s missing the boat on this one.

    1. Not attending the fundraiser would not be giving up a seat at the table, as a co-host, it would be taking the table away so no one else can sit down.  

      Truly well said.

  3. as far as their points about the Obama administration being dismal on gay rights, and Congress not being much better, but I still think Polis should go. Not because of the reasons that Pols cited though.

    Polis should go purely because, through the controversy that’s been created sorrounding the event, it’s become a perfect platform to get media attention focused on the issue at hand.

    LGBT Democrats need to make a statement. They need to show that their issues are just as important as any other Democratic constituency. One way to make that statement is to boycott, make your own press conference, or stop donating to the DNC. The other way is to go there, make it clear that gays won’t be marginalized, and then get back to work on trying to change the way things currently are.

    1. though there’s a difference between showing up at this dinner and keeping your place “at the table” to make clear your group won’t be marginalized — attending the dinner costs a minimum $1,000 and forks that money over, without strings, to an organization you might not want to be supporting fully right now. It’s a tough call.

      1. I was thinking of Polis and the other Reps only, and I could definitely understand how mid-level gay donors who would normally attend would skip it out of protest.

          1. they write a free pass to Obama for a horrible decision.  I am a huge Obama supporter but I think defense of marriage has been one of his biggest mistakes so far in the White House. I hope a lot of phone calls are made right now to effectively shut it down.  

            Why support an organization that just slapped you in the face ?  I don’t get it.

            2. Between how R’s treat conservative evangelical christians and how the D’s are now treating the GLBT community?

              I don’t know the answer to that, but it looks like the direction that FDN is taking the conversation.

              More importantly, if it’s true, then how do you keep the train from going off the tracks?

              1. I see this as healthy dissent amongst members of congress who are members of the GLBT community, who may or may not send a signal to the president and the rest of the party that this decision is wrong.

                I think it pales in comparison to the massive schism in the GOP right now.  The crack in the GOP runs across tons of issues, including abortion, gay rights, race relations, illegal immigration, international relations, two wars, and not to mention the governments role in the bailout.

                My two cents anyway.

          2. The members of the Board and our membership put our hopes, our dollars and our time into ensuring the election of Barack Obama because we believed that he supported us. To now have his Administration refer to our relationships in the same terms used by our long time enemies such as Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and James Dobson hurts on so many levels. To have our committed and loving relationships referred to as the moral equivalent of incest and pedophilia is not something that any of us ever expected from this Administration considering how hard we worked to be seen and respected. For that reason alone, advocating for attendance at a fundraiser to support the Administration and the DNC, while they have not condemned this hurtful language, is not something our membership will receive positively.

            Ameriblog:

            The Stonewall Democrats is THE gay Democratic organization. They are partisans to the core. They don’t go against the party. And no offense to our friends at SD, but they’re not exactly “gay activists” either. For this organization to announce that it is pulling out of the upcoming DNC gay fundraiser is not just a big deal for the fundraiser, it’s a very troubling message for the Democratic party leadership.

            Let me put this another way. And again, no offense to Stonewall Dems. But these are folks that sometimes, some of us, think are more Dem than they are Gay. For them to stick it to the Democratic Party is rather huge.

            HT to SLOG

            2. The initial diary here takes the tone that banning this is counterproductive for the LGBT community. But that’s the kind of “just keep waiting your turn” mentality that LGBT people are fed up with, especially in light of the defense of DOMA and how the brief was worded. It was a huge slap in the face, and that’s why it’s playing out as it is. Without that brief, this would not have blown up.

              This is shaping up to be a pivotal moment for Obama and for the cause of LGBT equality.

            3. …was discussing the moral equivalency of gay marriage is off the mark and over the top.  Turn down the drama level one notch, Stonewall!

              1. It stated that since states don’t recognize incestuous marriages they don’t have to recognize gay ones.  To make that argument you have to believe gay marriage and incest are equivalent.  

                And when asked if Obama supported the brief, Gibbs’ answer was that it was Obama’s justice department, so, yeah.  

                This is exactly the argument the far right has been making for years. By making the same argument Obama allied himself with them not the Glbt community.  I don’t think that’s drama. It’s a fair interpretation of the situation.  

                    1. I mean to say that the brief does not invoke or mention morality in support of its arguments.  It doesn’t say, e.g., that “incestuous relationships and gay marriage are equally immoral and thus DOMA is fabu”.  You can decide that the brief’s ostensibly amormal arguments are in fact immoral (because they are odious, etc.), but that’s different, in my view, from saying that the brief itself is making a moral argument, which is what the Stonewall Dems said.

  4. I think there’s a difference between a boycott by donors and nonprofit organizations and not attending as an elected official. Many donors, in fact, have stated they will continue giving to specific officials (ostensibly including Frank, Baldwin, Polis and many pro-LGBT Sens. and Reps.) but will not give to the DNC.

    Jared is undoubtedly one of the most high-profile LGBT leaders in the US, from his place in Congress and his profile on CNN, etc. He should remain at the table. His indictment of Obama was fairly scathing, and unlike Barney Frank he refused to go back on his initial statement against the President and this action.

    He should attend, and if given the opportunity to speak, call out the administration in public, since VP Biden will be present. I hope he continues his outspokenness while leading members of the administration are there, and I think it would send an ever more powerful message than simply not going.  

    3. Do you want to go right wing and go no where fast, or go left wing and go somewhere slow but sure?  Be real.  Jared has to go to this thing.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

121 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!